CNN Runs Scared from the Truth about Andrew Wakefield
By John Stone
An incident on a CNN blog on Friday morning revealed how sensitive the news channel could be about arguing with the official dogma surrounding Andrew Wakefield. When the present writer – posting at breakfast UK time and the middle of the night Eastern - contested the fraud allegations repeated in an op ed piece by Frank Y. Wong, an associate professor at the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University the news channel responded with blocking tactics. Pointing to the exoneration of Wakefield’s senior colleague and author, Prof John Walker-Smith, in the British high court two years ago, I was immediately countered by a poster called “Tony” quoting paragraphs from the Wiki entry on Andrew Wakefield. I then found that my next response went straight into moderation never to see the light of day and a similar comment forwarded to me by an acquaintance was also blocked by the same method. All this happened within a very few minutes although it was the middle of the night in the US. The page now reveals that no less than nine responses to “Tony” were deleted (presumably all before publication). When I subsequently commented elsewhere on the blog there was no block: it was specific to this comment.
The Wiki entry on Andrew Wakefield has a pharmaceutical Praetorian guard surrounding it preventing it from ever being corrected, and plainly CNN realised that they were on to a loser if this discussion continued. My deleted comment read:
But this is a flawed account. The findings were confirmed by both histopathologists in the paper subsequent to the hearing (here and here)
When the Deer/BMJ findings came under the scrutiny of Dr David Lewis in November 2011 they were forced to re-trench (reported in Nature):
“But he (Bjarnason) says that the forms don't clearly support charges that Wakefield deliberately misinterpreted the records.
"The data are subjective. It's different to say it's deliberate falsification," he says.
“Deer notes that he never accused Wakefield of fraud over his interpretation of pathology records…
“Fiona Godlee, the editor of the BMJ, says that the journal's conclusion of fraud was not based on the pathology but on a number of discrepancies between the children's records and the claims in the Lancet paper…”
Although Godlee had previously stated in February 2011:
“The case we presented against Andrew Wakefield that the1998 Lancet paper was intended to mislead was not critically reliant on GP records”. It is primarily based on Royal Free hospital records, including histories taken by clinicians, and letters and other documents received at the Royal Free from GPs and consultants."
But it is clear that the judge who presided over Walker-Smith's exoneration and reviewed the Lancet paper in detail could not find any evidence of this. His one major quibble was over the statement about ethical approval paper which Walker-Smith says he did not see - however this is accurate too.
"Ethical approval and consent
"Investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, and parents gave informed consent."
The paper did not have ethical approval and consent, and did not need it because it was simply a review of patient data (which was what was on the tin). The procedures needed ethical approval and consent and had them.
So Wiki does not tell you any of this but repeats an account that is long disproven.
And shamefully CNN are hiding behind it.
John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.
Vaccine Dinner Club? Includes the general public? No one invited me to dinner. Did anyone invite you? Sounds like a fraternity more than an inclusive altruistic organization. I wonder what the Club spends on its Dinners? And where are these Dinners held? In Simpsonwood?
Posted by: Linda | February 20, 2014 at 11:59 PM
Christina Waldman;
Good work!
There will be a lot of people once they wake up wanting to know the WHO and the HOW.
It won't be confined to those with loved ones that hae autism either.
Posted by: Benedetta | February 20, 2014 at 11:37 PM
Dr. Frank Y. Wong, author of that CNN story, is an Investigator with the Center for Aids Research at Emory. http://www.cfar.emory.edu/bio/investigator/wong.html According to his bio, he's also a member of the Vaccine Dinner Club whose first mission is to "advance vaccine science." http://www.cfar.emory.edu/vdc/
The Vaccine Dinner Club includes in its membership people from: "academia (Emory University, Mercer University, the University of Georgia, Clayton State College, Samford University, Morehouse School of Medicine, the Medical College of Georgia, Georgia State University, Georgia Tech, Kennesaw State University, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Druid Hills High School), public health (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Carter Center), private industry (the Georgia Research Alliance, GeoVax, Merck), government (federal, state, and local [CDC mentioned under "public health"]), community based research organizations (Hope Clinic, ARCA), the judiciary (federal and state), the fourth estate (internet, print[CNN?]), charitable foundations (Robert Wood Johnson, Gates), and the general public..."
Very comprehensive.
The Vaccine Dinner Club is sponsored by "The Emory Vaccine Center, the Georgia Research Alliance, the Center for AIDS Research at Emory, and the CDC Chapter of Sigma Xi." (so next time you see one of the directors of these organizations, say thank you. http://www.cfar.emory.edu/vdc/ (copyright 2013)
Check out Vactruth's article "Voices for Vaccines: 11 Facts show how it's a propaganda ploy for Emory University, the CDC, and Bit Pharma." http://vactruth.com/2014/02/19/cdc-and-emory-university/?utm_source=The+Vaccine+Truth+Newsletter&utm_campaign=24fb7f476b-02_19_2014_v4v&utm_medium=em
Wong's vaccine ties were not disclosed in the CNN article.
Posted by: Christina Waldman | February 20, 2014 at 09:49 PM
I'm still posting at CNN, have found that if I link to Age of Autism or Thinkingmomsrevolution, if I say the names, or those of Hilary Butler or Vaccine Court, that that gets them taken down. It's like at Shot of Prevention, where, for a while, the mention of the name of a vaccine or a disease got them taken down. But we can forge onwards saying HB, AW, MM-, DT--, Vac Ct. That's right, Lil$$$, aren't we endlessly clever?
Posted by: cia parker | February 19, 2014 at 03:37 PM
I am also certain that they are going to bring back the old DPT. Two years ago the newspaper said the old vaccine was discontinued because it could cause fever, didn't mention the brain damage and death chronicled in A Shot in the Dark. Look at this:
http://www.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20130520/study-older-whooping-cough-vaccine-more-effective
It also says the old shot caused fever, no mention of the real reasons it was taken off the market.
Posted by: cia parker | February 19, 2014 at 03:32 PM
Patience
Going on 32 years.
Patience - and meanwhile they extend and booster Hep Bs, flu shots, and the DTaP
So they caught on of our family members again.
That was in the Fall of 2012 -- and reinjuried again.
It took a year for them to fire her because of it mood disorder became worse.
So can I sue them for that one -- or do they count the very first sign way back to 1981 when she first ran a temp after her first DPT shot of 105? Or maybe 1982 the first sign would have been 3 weeks in the hospital with 105 temp and Kawaakis -- so again I have to suck it up?
Posted by: Benedetta | February 19, 2014 at 10:37 AM
Mercky business, it sounds like you are asking whether factual truth is an absolute defense to defamation. There are a lot of ins and outs to defamation law, and every case is unique.... The Wikipedia thing stinks. Let us, I suggest, be patient and respectfully wait for the appeals judge's decision in the current defamation case against Brian Deer, the BMJ, and Dr. Fiona Godlee in Texas for defaming Dr. Wakefield back on Jan. 6, 2011 and thereabouts.
We do know that 4th year med students at UC San Francisco write/edit Wikipedia articles on health topics.
http://qz.com/171162/americas-future-doctors-are-starting-their-careers-by-saving-wikipedia/
http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2014/01/29/report-wikipedia-the-top-source-of-health-care-info-for-doctors-patients/
Posted by: Christina Waldman | February 18, 2014 at 10:31 PM
Hi Jerry
Thanks. It should be mentioned that the one thing we don't have in the UK is mandatory vaccinations. It has become latterly a big media talking point but the unspoken reason I suspect is that the state does not want ultimate legal responsibily.
John
Posted by: John Stone | February 17, 2014 at 03:26 AM
Keep up the good work, John. With the advent of National Health here in the colonies, aka ObamaCare, sponsored by Big Pharma, we will be going the route of mandatory vaccination. It's hard to get inroads against the gauntlet, as you see with CNN and Wikipedia. I pray that the truth can stay ahead of the fascism that is strangling our countries.
Posted by: Jerry | February 16, 2014 at 11:24 PM
"A half-truth is a full lie" - An ancient Hebrew proverb perfectly fitting Wikipedia, CNN, CDC et al. Quoted to the New York State Assembly Committee by the indefatigable Gary Null in 2009 when he testified as the dangers of the newly concocted H1N1/Swine flu shot being forced on all NT nurses or be fired, a brainless dictate by New York's Governor during the (also concocted) Pandemic Panic.
Note: The Governor backed down, but of course the last five years have only seen an unrelenting ramp-up of CDC's dogmatic fear mongering and flu-shot promotions.
Posted by: david m burd | February 12, 2014 at 07:54 AM
Gatogorra
And as Aussie Dad points out below Wiki even have robots to do it now so correction must be instantaneous.
Posted by: John Stone | February 12, 2014 at 03:35 AM
@Mercky Business- it's called updating but either they're a) too stupid to do it, or b) it doesn't serve their interests. As others have said, Wiki is lame and they don't have the integrity to do it. Just my 2 cents.
Posted by: jen | February 12, 2014 at 12:06 AM
At some point in the past few years, even Urban Dictionary set a moratorium on submissions that question the integrity of biotech products and practices. If only Orwell could write a sequel, he'd have to add a few divisions to Minitru. "Debunksec" for Snopes-type verification sites, etc.If anything is high profile enough for most people to be aware of it, it's generally captured. But at least some of these sites and forums had a bit of initial independence to lose. Not true of CNN. I can remember "watching the war" during Desert Storm.
I learned about the Praetorian pharma guard at Wiki about seven years ago when I heard several professionals in the reform psychiatry movement discuss a casual experiment in trying to edit a couple of high traffic Wiki articles on mental illness which (at the time as well as now) read like pharmaceutical ads. Drugs, drugs and more drugs with no mention of side effects or alternative theories to the "genetic brain chemical imbalance" theories, etc. When these PhD's, MD's and MSW's attempted to add some missing data and links, they watched how long it took for new edits to disappear. It boiled down to hours and even minutes. They concluded that there was an army of pharmaceutical hacks guarding the entries at all times. An app invented by a Caltech grad student later confirmed that this was the case.
Posted by: Gatogorra | February 11, 2014 at 11:34 PM
Christina
What do you think the position is when an entry affects to be "encyclopaedic" but deliberately witholds information which would change the entire picture. At the moment Wiki states things which are not necessarily untrue but entirely misleading as to the facts. They say things have been said about AW and that is largely accurate, but the things themselves have been disproven. If they are informed of the facts and choose not to report them could the position be legally different than if they just do not know?
Posted by: Mercky Business | February 11, 2014 at 07:22 PM
To Hera: Wikipedia can be sued and has been; you can google to find some of the lawsuits. The lawsuit would belong to the person or persons wronged, not to people who just like to see the facts (both disputed and undisputed) told in a fair and balanced light. Best to warn people that Wikipedia is not credible and avoid using it, in my opinion. I have made corrections to other Wikipedia articles and it was never a fight (like it was on the Wakefield article, and nothing gained), like when children of a famous person were listed and Wikipedia listed only the sons, leaving out the daughters, or got the lineage of kings and queens wrong in an article relating to English history. Did you see the Michael Reagan piece that said doctors often consult Wikipedia as their first source when diagnosing? I hope it is a joke. http://www.newsmax.com/Reagan/Doctors-Wikipedia-online-healthcare/2014/01/31/id/550164
Posted by: Christina Waldman | February 11, 2014 at 02:42 PM
Hi Hera,
The Wiki account is misleading not so much because the information is wrong but because it does not tell you what happened subsequently to undermine the allegations and findings it reports. It hides legally behind the fact that these things have been alleged and found, even though they are now known not to be true. On this basis they may not even have to update it if there are further findings.
Posted by: Mercky Business | February 11, 2014 at 01:51 PM
Can't help wondering
1.Can Wikipedia be sued?(I'm guessing yes, and though I'm not a lawyer, am wondering if it might only take a stiff letter from an interested parties lawyer to make inaccurate stuff get taken off ...)
Also wondering
2. Can the people who made any unfounded or inaccurate edits about living persons be sued?
Don't think most of the Wikipedia editors are anonymous.
Posted by: Hera | February 11, 2014 at 12:36 PM
I really found this article interesting. Thanks for your research. I did not know this was happening and certainly not to this extent. I was hugely turned off some time ago by Anderson Cooper's absurd interview with Wakefield. He admitted he had not even read his book, yet attacked him very aggressively based on a bunch of wrong information. I have never again considered him a reliable journalist.
Posted by: Lisa | February 11, 2014 at 12:05 PM
My comments on the CNN article were also blocked. Glad to see that I'm in good company.
Posted by: Kevin D. | February 11, 2014 at 08:21 AM
Thank you Aussie Dad!
And an interesting article about Wiki on DavidHealy.org this morning.
http://davidhealy.org/sexual-dysfunction-enduring-after-treatment-halts-s-death/
Posted by: John Stone | February 11, 2014 at 05:52 AM
I just posted the following after the first paragraph of the Andrew Wakefield Wikipedia page:
"The Wiki entry on Andrew Wakefield has a pharmaceutical Praetorian guard surrounding it preventing it from ever being corrected."
Pleased to say it lasted about 20 seconds.
The following was the response that came up:
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Andrew Wakefield has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
Posted by: Aussie Dad | February 11, 2014 at 05:26 AM
The Wiki entry for Dr. Jon Poling also contains tactical omissions and biased sources -- Kathleen Seidel, Rahul Parikh, Paul Offit, Steven Novella and Matt Carey in the article, plus Gardiner Harris and Mike Stobbe in the references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Poling
Sad that Wikipedia degenerated so rapidly into little more than a digital pissing contest. And tragic that mainstream journalists show so little interest in correcting the false official story on MMR injury... especially because that and other shots continue to claim more tiny victims.
Posted by: nhokkanen | February 10, 2014 at 09:59 PM
The Wakefield Wikipedia article is grossly defamatory, although Wikipedia is supposed to have safeguards to protect a biography of a living person from defamation. I have tried several times to suggest edits to that article, and met with the same "Praetorian Guard" phenomenon John mentioned. Some people involved with that Wakefield Wikipedia article also wrote the Jan. 6, 2011 Washington Times articles on Dr. Wakefield in the same vein (Jan. 6, 2011 being, of course, the date of Brian Deer's alleged defamation of Dr. Wakefield and his work in the British Medical Journal).
I stay away from Wikipedia and warn other people that Wikipedia is not credible. You might think people would be more careful not to post information without checking facts for accuracy, but there's a lack of oversight on Wikipedia.
Posted by: Christina Waldman | February 10, 2014 at 09:40 PM
On November 2014, after serving 4 years in office (one term), we all head back to the polling booth for a State Election to either re-elect the current government or elect the opposition.
I was invited to attend a public forum as part of a review for our State and express my views on anything I was concerned about.
I told the forum how disappointed I was that during the last election, no politician from either side mentioned AUTISM.
..."AUTISM"...a word in Australia that remains silent...!
Elizabeth Gillespie
P.S Thanks for the update John!
Posted by: AussieMum | February 10, 2014 at 09:03 PM
Notice the unlimited research material on damaged hypothalamus of rat brains.
Rat brains well --
Posted by: Benedetta | February 10, 2014 at 09:03 PM
Jillba's comment got through because they saw baboons - animals in the first paragraph and thus thought it was just about animals.
That is how science teachers are able to teach about evolution in the Bible Belt teach about the evolution of animals and not humans.
Posted by: Benedetta | February 10, 2014 at 09:01 PM
Captain
No, the point is in the headline: CNN are running scared of the truth about Wakefield. A site like AoA has to be pre-moderated otherwise it would be over-run with abusive stuff like your comment and no one would get a word in.
Posted by: John Stone | February 10, 2014 at 07:37 PM
CT teacher, ps: Yes, thinking for one's self - as you said - is what counts - thanks!
Posted by: david m burd | February 10, 2014 at 07:26 PM
CT teacher, You struck key points - thanks. Our makeup and health is by Nature and/or God. Certainly NOT what comes from The Medical Industry.
Posted by: david m burd | February 10, 2014 at 07:19 PM
"Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them."
And you are complaining that your comments at another blog have been moderated?
hypocrisy much?
Posted by: Captain | February 10, 2014 at 07:16 PM
Wiki's RFK Jr. article is similarly pharma driven. It contains claims of "factual errors" in his Simpsonwood article. Yeah... anything in it that they don't like will be stamped a "factual error.
Posted by: Carter's Daddy | February 10, 2014 at 07:01 PM
That's wonderful Kristina. Thank you for the heads up. I will keep an eye out for replies and also to see if they eventually delete it. Cheers.
Posted by: Jillba | February 10, 2014 at 06:31 PM
Yes Linda, the thugs and creeps are getting together. I see Dr. Proffit and Dr. Joe (Josephius?) Schwarcz from McGill have collaborated on Proffit's latest book- slamming vitamins, when so many have problem related to vitamin deficiencies. His book is called, "Do Believe in Magic?" Not sure about magic but bullshit is alive and well!
Posted by: Disgusted as well. | February 10, 2014 at 06:13 PM
wi-k-i wink ...it should be known as not a shred of truth is allowed to be documented concerning A W ...I have tried posted then deleted..free press donch`ya !know..lol
Posted by: Angus | February 10, 2014 at 05:34 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if we are spreading most infectious diseases through the vaccination program. Does anyone really think that Nature or God intended that in order for children to be healthy, humans needed to inject all kinds of toxic substances and foreign proteins into the bloodstream? It is pollution, pure and simple and just like with the environment that we have so polluted, mankind is paying and will continue to pay a huge price. Until we begin to use our common sense and honor our minds and bodies and our Earth, we will suffer. How can we be so stupid as to think that we can fool Mother Nature? She has proven time and time again that we cannot.
I am constantly amazed at the inability of people to think this through. People are too afraid to think for themselves. So, they listen to the medical profession which is a perfect example of a group of people who cannot think....cannot use logic..cannot reason. These people refuse to believe what their eyes and ears tell them instead of listening to THE SCIENCE. What in the world is that anyway? In science 101 I learned that the best scientific method was OBSERVATION. Medical people don't do that...they need studies...which prove nothing because they are so fraudulent. Any reasonable, thinking person would be able to understand that vaccination is an impure process that makes no sense. Medical people should be listening to, and recording the stories of thousands of parents who tell the stories of all kinds of vaccine damage. Just looking at the stats should alarm them...but they do not apply logic to this task.
Honestly, if people don't learn to think for themselves, the human race is lost. We have so damaged our DNA and everything else that we may not be able to recover.
Posted by: CT teacher | February 10, 2014 at 05:17 PM
Jillba, I saw your comment on CNN! I'm very surprised they posted it!
Posted by: Kristina | February 10, 2014 at 05:11 PM
I think this is part of a worldwide plan, an orchestrated campaign to silence dissent. Pharma and bed partners have stepped onto the battlefield and they are aiming directly at us. We will be seeing less and less of the truth in media (there will be a time when studies like the baboon study will not be released to the public), more censorship or elimination of comments, the move to criminalize the questioning of accepted medical practice, as we are seeing in Australia, and to prosecute those who refuse medical "care" by blaming refusers for outbreaks of disease. We will be free, free to take the drugs as prescribed or go to prison and have them forced on us there. I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: Linda | February 10, 2014 at 05:02 PM
I just posted which is under moderation of course. Below is my oomment....
Scientific American published an article on 1 Feb 2014 regarding a Baboon study in which the animals that received the acellular pertussis vaccine were able to spread the disease to the animals that were not vaccinated. This new vaccine is also not as effective as the old one but the older one caused fever induced seizures. Ironically, in 2012, the CDC recommended mothers get vaccinated so that they would not spread it to their babies. Little did they know that they were doing just that by getting vaccinated. See links below:
http://www.scientificamerican....
"During their infections, acellular-vaccinated baboons were able to pass the bacterium to unprotected animals, Merkel's team recently reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. The study, says Eric Harvill, a professor of microbiology and infectious disease at Pennsylvania State University, “explains a lot of the observations about the circulation of pertussis in highly vaccinated populations.”
http://www.scientificamerican....
"The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has already taken some steps to address the nationwide increase in pertussis cases by recommending in October 2012 that pregnant women receive the Tdap booster between 27 and 36 weeks of pregnancy, even if they have already received a previous Tdap. “The thinking was this: it looks like more children are dying, so as a first step, let’s prevent the deaths,” Offit says. Of the 18 pertussis fatalities in 2012 (pdf), 13 were under three months old. The hope is that pregnant women will pass along some of their immunity to their newborns for added protection until the infants’ first DTaP shots at two months. Another way to protect the youngest babies is cocooning—immunizing everyone around the baby with Tdap boosters."
Posted by: Jillba | February 10, 2014 at 03:47 PM
CNN and Frank Wong are agenda driven. A simple Google search of pertussis shot leads to a number of articles describing vaccine failure as the cause for the rise in pertussis.
For example, Scientific American February 2014:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/baboon-study-reveals-new-shortcoming-of-pertussis-vaccine/
"Tod Merkel and his colleagues at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration suspected another weakness lurked in the acellular vaccine—that it might not block the spread of the disease."
I wold not depend upon the crank blog spot that CNN has become for information on a hangnail, let alone something as complex as objective information on risk/reward of various vaccinations.
Please note that it appears that Scientific American is now subtly advocating for switch back to whole cell pertussis shot. Is the patent expiring on attenuated vaccine? Probably.
Posted by: Ottoschnaut | February 10, 2014 at 02:35 PM
Hi Jen
This was the only one which was blocked. What it did do was demonstrate that they were very nervous about this point.
John
Posted by: John Stone | February 10, 2014 at 02:05 PM
Thank you John Stone for being such a strong, knowledgeable, intelligent voice of reason in the face of so much garbage.
Posted by: Twyla | February 10, 2014 at 02:02 PM
John, you should post your responses that were deleted by CNN in their entirety here.
Posted by: jen | February 10, 2014 at 01:57 PM
Hi Xerxes,
That was certainly the case. No reason not to mention it though I would have to look round for the reference. It remains that John Walker-Smith's high court exoneration was based on the Wakefield Lancet paper - of which he was senior author - reporting correctly.
Posted by: John Stone | February 10, 2014 at 01:52 PM
Seems the 1998 "debunked Wakefield paper" has now been replaced by nearly 20 other papers that say the same thing.
Of course the media, hiding behind the "Wizard of Oz curtain" with a few dozen others, and millions of pharma advertising dollars.. cannot seem to get beyond what has happened since 1998.
Posted by: cmo | February 10, 2014 at 01:41 PM
Is it not the case that, prior to Dr Wakefield's involvement with Lancet paper, Professor Walker-Smith had done and presented work on many of the same children, arriving at the same clinical conclusions? This seems like one of the stronger refutations of any "fraud" allegations, yet I don't see it mentioned often. Is there any reason for that?
Posted by: XerxesOnXanax | February 10, 2014 at 01:17 PM
Proof positive that CNN, along with the majority of main-stream 'news' is bought and paid for. They suck!
Posted by: Cliff Davis | February 10, 2014 at 01:02 PM
Thanks for posting the truth here, as excellently as can be represented despite all the effort elsewhere to make getting the truth a painful process.
This may not be the same trend with mainstream internet "news" and blogs:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/january-cable-rankings-fox-news-rachel-maddow-key-demo-msnbc_n_4687171.html
"'Anderson Cooper 360' was CNN's top performer in January, but that's not saying much. The show came in at 24th for total viewers and 27th for key age demo in a month that brought CNN its third-worst ratings in network history.
"A new year and a fresh start is much needed after every network saw a drop in ratings during primetime hours in 2013..."
But it seems, possibly, a hopeful indication that more are going elsewhere for news.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | February 10, 2014 at 01:00 PM
Excellent work, John Stone. Its time for Andy Wakefield's name to be cleared.
Posted by: MotherOfPossibility | February 10, 2014 at 11:39 AM
What a joke, Wikepedia is not considered a reliable source even for high school kids!
Posted by: disgusted | February 10, 2014 at 11:29 AM
If Tony's big source on the matter is the Wikipedia, then, oh Deer, what a joke! That's pathetic as everyone knows Wikipedia is tightly controlled and biased. Shame on CNN.
Posted by: jen | February 10, 2014 at 10:07 AM
I love how the article says whooping cough is "easily preventable" by the vaccine, and blames unvaccinated people on outbreaks. Sigh.
Posted by: Kristina | February 10, 2014 at 10:05 AM
Wikipedia (aka Wiki) and such as CNN might as well be publicity departments in plush corner offices shared by CDC and Pharma. There is zero chance they they will ever change and be scientifically honest about vaccine dangers and vaccines' history of worldwide carnage. In my opinion Wiki exemplifies the "bad side" of Web freedoms, but that's the way it is and we have no choice as to its existence, except the freedom to never go to Wiki except for such as sports' statistics and who was in what movies. Just check out what Wiki says about Dan Olmsted and autism, and Age of Autism.
Posted by: david m burd | February 10, 2014 at 08:24 AM
Thanks John for continuing to speak out and representing AOA so well. I'll have more to say on Andy this weekend.
Posted by: dan olmsted | February 10, 2014 at 06:55 AM
Well done John Stone. CNN is the same channel which gave Brian Deer a platform Jan 2011, to publicise his BMJ article 'How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed'. Dr Wakefield's attempts to defend himself on the same channel resulted in a public metaphorical 'lynching', where amongst others he was accused of murdering children, by putting parents off the vaccine.
The truth? -TWO child measles deaths post MMR vaccine in the UK. Both children could not be vaccinated due to very serious co morbidities which might well have been terminal anyway.
There have been FOUR 'officially admitted' deaths from MMR vaccine in the UK. These children were all well beforehand.
This article is now banging the drum for pertussis vaccinations (DTaP). Yes this bacterium has evolved into a dangerous form, possibly due to evolved resistance due to mass vaccinations. Certainly the majority of children contracting this disease were vaccinated, but sadly a number of babies, too young to be vaccinated died from it. Panicking government health officials worldwide are now advocating pregnant mums receive these vaccines. This is contraindicated on the vaccine inserts.
I note this article now has NO COMMENTS beneath the text, so well done for publicising this blog and challenging all the misinformation. I noticed that Dr Wakefield is not named on this blog, nor is he named on the Times Dr Clare Gerada editorial. I suspect the legal advisors are at last running scared.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | February 10, 2014 at 06:49 AM